nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Government
This forum is a forum for discussing the make-up of the Government of Lovia following the Federal elections. Topics may include the makeup of the government of the Congress and which MOTCs will receive control of which ministries. The current talks are for the 2013 Congress. Ministries You can take a look at User:TimeMaster/Ministries or the individual ministry pages for an overview of what the duties of each ministry are. Afterward, sign up for ministries that you are interested in below: *Prime Minister **TimeMaster **OWTB **Happy65 (maybe) **... *Ministry of Agriculture **-Sunkist- **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Commerce **Happy65 **... *Ministry of Culture **OWTB **horton11 **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Defense **Kunarian **Quarantine Zone **Granero **... *Ministry of Education **TimeMaster **Granero **OWTB **... *Ministry of Energy and Resources **-Sunkist- **... *Ministry of Environment **77topaz **... *Ministry of Family and Youth **OWTB ***Did you just add this ministry? Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) **... *Ministry of Finance **TimeMaster **... *Ministry of Foreign Affairs **77topaz **horton11 **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Health **Crystalbeastdeck09 **Quarantine Zone **Granero **horton11 **... *Ministry of Justice **Happy65 **... *Ministry of Labour **Crystalbeastdeck09 **... *Ministry of Tourism and Sport **77topaz **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Transportation **Happy65 **Wabba The I **... *Speaker of the Congress **TimeMaster **Semyon **... New Ministries Alright, so Oos seems to want to add a Family and Youth ministry (though possibly could include elderly as well). Sounds good to me, but perhaps we could add a couple others as well? This might include Communications (for running the state media and maintaining telephone and internet), Science/Research (self-explanatory, could also merge into Education), Infrastructure (non-transportation or sport related infrastructure, urban development), Security (or Interior) (sort of like defense but more like public safety that isn't law enforcement, could also merge into Defense or Justice), Industry (could also work in Commerce or another), and the Sea (self-explanatory, could merge into Energy and Resources or possibly Environment). Anyway, that's just a list I made up. Would anyone be interested in making some a reality? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) First time i was in government i did a condesment act, later replead, but i think still needed in a small country such as lovia we would need to combine departments. I think this would do. If we ever did Question time i'd like that Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC) *Prime Minister *Agriculture and Rural affairs *Engery, Environment and Resources *Defense *Commerce and Finance *Education and Research *Foriegn Affairs *Health *Justice *Labour, Infrastructure and Urban development *Transportation *Tourism and Sport *Family, Youth and Elderly *Culture I think that we could combine departments. (I want smaller government in general.) I think we should have transportation cover city infrastructure too. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:11, January 23, 2013 (UTC) I would never group environment and agriculture together. They are the opposite... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:43, January 24, 2013 (UTC) I'm with Oos on that one actually... They are different. I think that finance and commerce could be put together though. Also, Ministry of Energy and Resources and Ministry of Environment, I think could be put together. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:08, January 24, 2013 (UTC) If Agriculture and Environment are opposites, then Energy and Resources and Environment would also be opposites. I think Commerce and Finance should be kept separate -- Finance refers more to the government's regulation of the currency, banks, and national treasury, while Commerce typically refers to regulation of businesses and trade. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:52, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Anyone still interested in discussing this? I like the addition of "(Agriculture and) Rural Affairs", "(Education and) Research", and "Family, Youth, and Elderly", but not much else of Marcus's plan. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:19, January 26, 2013 (UTC) Okay :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:29, January 26, 2013 (UTC) I think that city infrastructure should be added to transportation. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:20, January 26, 2013 (UTC) Opposition What would anyone think of the idea of having a formal government/opposition? I was thinking it might give people a chance to have a position that they like, rather than something frankly dull like 'Commerce' or 'Energy and Resources,' because there would be two people for each, the government 'minister' and an opposition 'shadow minister,' particularly because there's a lot of people to share posts around this year. I think we could make sure the opposition wouldn't be excluded, it would be more of a roleplay IC thing. If you hate the idea, that's ok. --Semyon 23:39, January 22, 2013 (UTC) I agree but also make sure government gets things done as well, we've governments only passing some minor bills or one or two major acts. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:43, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Interesting idea, but then we'd have to divide into official governments and oppositions, and I think it might not work out so well. Besides, I wanted to make the real (not shadow) ministries more important, and since shadow ministries would do nothing (except criticize?), it could create problems for radicals or other opposition who wanted to be in government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:48, January 22, 2013 (UTC) To legitimise the idea of opposition they would have to also work towards the same goal as the non-shadow minister. While the idea of opposition is a great idea, and in a way I'd support it if we made the opposition part of the government not just cast outs. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:51, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Scruintize :P not criticize. I don't think it creates outcasts but those of the same ideology or goal working together to form the government and in turn helping lovia. Shadow ministers would be nice except we don't realy have chat, to argue over government policy unless we schedual something in chat and post it later in the first chamber... Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:55, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Sidenote: What will happen to the Departments? Will the be outphased by the ministries? Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) They already were. ;) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:32, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Only a little bit confused beacuse there is Department pages still in present tense and no reference to them being phased out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:11, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Some of them are in past tense and have reference to being phased out, though the rest still need to be updated. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC) @TM and Kunarian: well, I think we could avoid making the opposition 'cast-outs.' :) OOC, the minister and shadow minister would simply be two users providing different ideological solutions to the same problems. The only difference would be that officially IC the minister would be superior to his shadow counterpart, but that would hardly be relevant from a day-to-day law-making point of view, particularly as most people didn't do a huge amount with their ministries last year. --Semyon 14:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Coalition - Government Any chance of a coalition surrounding ideology or some concept? Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:29, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :Confederalism? Hoffmann KunarianTALK 04:05, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :You and Me. Oos? Or is he more Pro-autonomy for Oceana? Marcus/Michael Villanova 04:12, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::He's Confederate by definition, I don't know whether he'd call himself that but he's pro-autonomy for Oceana and pro-States. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 04:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Oos will run for PM and Culture. Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 07:57, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::Oos is indeed for more state power and an even more elevated position for Oceana, if State Laws will not be returned to all the states. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I think we have a coalition in progress....ANd being the three largest parties we'd JUST get about 50+ seats. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:54, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::We'd get a nice centrist government in any case :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:56, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Can we talk serious? Is this an official agreement? The LCR (Left-Center-right) coaliton. Would be nice. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:58, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Also add in any other smaller parties your bringing like NPO so our numbers are increased. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:06, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I'm still not totally sold on this just yet. If we go ahead we're likely to isolate the pro-centralization parties, most notably SLP. HORTON11: • 16:08, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::We wouldn't isolate the SLP. Confederalism is the basis for this coalition, there are other sections of policy to debate too. Also we aren't going to isolate anyone from the Ministries so they have no worries, you can trust me of all people after my arguments before hand about inclusion. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:28, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::That's only my personal position, I will have to ask the Daembrales and Granero before it becomes an SLP policy. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:52, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I understadn this, but the people have spoken and maybe we won't have a full blown coaliton per se but we want action done on a confederate front. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:13, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Whatever happened to that SLP-Labour-CCPL coalition you were so interested in. I would still like to pursue that. Like Semyon said the only thing we have in common with CNP is confederation and I fear this is not enough. HORTON11: • 16:16, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I hardly think that Confederalism is a small thing that CNP and Labour share, admittedly we aren't very close on economic issue but we do share a similar social policy. Getting powers to the States will not be easy, and I think that if we have the CNP and Labour working together we really do bridge the gap and show unity in government. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:24, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::We could start to pass moderate ecnomic policies such as Kunarian's tax act, and start a diolauge on it and get taxes passed which would be landmark and pass major confederate a social bills. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:25, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::That's the thing. If Labour and CNP can achieve at least something together, then anything is possible for Lovia. But if we can make some compromises on points economy vs. health and welfare, it could actually work. HORTON11: • 16:27, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::I think that we can easily work together on the economy, working against multi-nationals and monopolies (and I actually mean it this year, not just posing and doing nothing). Health and welfare will be harder but we will work it out. 16:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Why don't you guys just vote on CCPL's policies? They're right in the middle :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:32, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Just going to say. It's a broad coalition so not one side will be overpowering the other. Again sign up any smaller parties you control. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::That's one idea :L I'll talk more later, I have an appointment. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:36, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::I was hoping we could do a tradeoff and use CNP-minded policies for the economy and Labour-minded policies for healthcare. HORTON11: • 16:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Confederate Coalition (name later) *Labour Party *NPO *Conservative Nationalist Party *CCPL (I guess... :P) *Parti fo Nesavicelost 'Oshenna (under conditions) *CDP *LMP I don't want to blow holes in the idea from the start, but Labour and CNP share pretty much nothing in common, apart from the confederate thing I suppose. --Semyon 16:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) : CDP is confederate also...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:26, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Maybe you could join? :) Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 21:58, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I'll join i guess. Typically I'd avoid LP though...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::In real talk, I'm not pro-CDP. The party loves to say there "far-right but not facist) which in all honesty isn't my forte. I like CNP (center-right) and CCPL (center, -right) Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:17, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::In general I'm farther right than most people. In America I wouldn't actually be very far right. I'd be pretty far right, but there are some laissez-faire people in America...I'd consider laissez-faire farther right than me. The only place in the world that meets my ideology is Texas, so I don't expect to get much support except from America :3 The idea of the coalition though is confederacy, so if we avoid other topics then were good.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::That, QZ is a good question, because I think this should be a governing coalition of parties around support our states but also centrist economic policies, and socially liberal social policies. Which is moderate and allows us to get things done? What does the CNP, CCPL think? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:26, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::Confederalism (which as I say again is a hefty task) should be our main focus. Putting too much on our plate will make us ineffective, we should pass vital legislation for governing (such as tax and budgeting as well as basic economic and social legislation we are missing) and focus on devolution. Economic policy is impossible with out the former. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 22:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think a CNP-LP-CCPL plus the smaller parties we're affiliated with could do this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:51, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::So you're up for a confederate reform and essential laws based coalition are you? Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 22:55, January 23, 2013 (UTC) (reset) I don't think we should put any stress on economic or social policies in this coalition. It's too broad of a spectrum to put any tag on it, even centrist. We should focus on confederalism, not economics or social policy. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:59, January 23, 2013 (UTC) : I don't think Just confederalism is a governing policy. I think if we use different ideologies close to the center we can accomplish more than a central goal. @Kun - Can we draw out a coalition agreement? Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:04, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::I will, however I think it's best if we focus on bringing Confederate Reform and establishing essentials. Our actual policy on these essentials will probably be centrist but as a coalition we will have to sit down and debate it. We need to establish a way to govern as I say before we actually can govern. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 23:08, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::User:Crystalbeastdeck09/Coalition Agreement are we a one issue coalition then disband? Or an actual governing coalition? Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:35, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :::We have three issues on that board. I think that's enough to have a coalition...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:05, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Yes, but again to be honest your a bit far-right and our coalition would be governing in the center and would be compromising a bunch of your views in the light (if this forms the government) we propose a bill and it passes. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:39, January 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I can see this is not a government coalition....thus I have no reason to join a coalition. If this was a governing coaliton I would join, but Labour isn't in the business of a unwritten un-binding alliance. I was under the impression this was a government coalition and that we were going to be centrist and have a cabinet and such but now we've allow Far-right parties/inactives, again proving to me this is not a government coalition. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:56, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I was hoping to get a working coalition out of this as well. I'm sorry that you are not willing to work on it. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:07, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I had, I was hoping to be in government but then were allowing far-right parties, and form a government with centrist parties but no one seemed to be for that, instead parties started making other coailitions for trivial issues. I'll support confederate bills just if it isnt a governing coalition i'm not for being in an alliance which I may be bound to later. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:17, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I think what you're saying makes sense, but I'm afraid we won't get the difficult things solved without a strong "force" in the chamber. We've been postponing some things way too long now. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:21, January 25, 2013 (UTC) Yeah but in the same sense you want a strong confederate force to get confederate objectives done, why wouldn't you want a majority of the seats, elected by the people to pass other centrist bills, and economic reforms. I find if we keep doing the "Grand Coalition", "Were all in this together" sounds fine on paper, but in all honesty, bills fail that shouldn't, and we waste time discussing other bills from the fringes of the far-right. Again only a governing, year long coalition is what were looking for. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:33, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :You, well, we could do a core government, meaning Labour - SLP - CCPL - CNP. But whether that'll work out is something else. In any case. If we'd choose for that, we all have things to give up: Labour some leftist views, SLP government centrism, CCPL some ethical stuff, CNP some rightist views. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:37, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :I understand that, I'd rather have something than nothing, but so far we have nothing. And I doubt we'll have a governing coalition of these parties but wont rule anything out, but i'm all for it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:39, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :: :P And anyway, the "Grand coalition" could hardly be called a coalition. We didn't really trade out any of our views, we only compromised within the bills :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:42, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::: Well still, Labour is for a governing coalition but for now nothing permanent. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:45, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::::Sure :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:47, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Is this going to happen still? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:05, January 26, 2013 (UTC) Central Coalition (not real) *SLP *No one else Is anyone else here against decentralization? :3 —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :Haaha :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:44, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Socially Conservative Coalition It would probably be CDP, CCPL, CNP, and LMP, but I suppose it could have more or less parties. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:24, January 24, 2013 (UTC) *CDP *CCPL *RTP (possibly) *Parti fo Nesavicelost 'Oshenna (under conditions) *LMP *... I don't think CNP is socially conservative. MCP relatively is, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:52, January 24, 2013 (UTC) I guess they are more libertarian, but they're nationalist... I never know... MCP supports euthanasia, abortion, and prostitution, and they want less laws on tobacco regulation. They're definitely more closer to center than conservative, hence Moderate Centrist Party... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:06, January 24, 2013 (UTC) MCP is pretty center though, def not to the conservative area of social policies. I think those two are already signed up for a government coalition. Or at least I hope, they look at it as a governing coalition which will have a PM and have a majority in government... Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:12, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :Are you not able to to join multiple coalitions? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:15, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Is this socially conservative or ethically conservative? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:45, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Oos, what is your definition of socially conservative? Anyway, I think QZ means socially conservative = ethically conservative. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:05, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :Socially conservative = minimal government/social security. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:23, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :@QZ - NO! A coalition is an alliance of Parties in a legislature or Congress who together work on common goals to form a government majority, not just random alliances...@Confederate Coalition - I hope we stay as an actual governing coalition!?!?Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:19, January 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Not necessarily, Marcus. It can be an alliance of parties in a legislature who work together on common goals to pass new laws, not a government majority. Oos, I think we would consider that Economic liberalism (or economic conservatism) here. Don't we usually use social as an adjective in relation to issues like abortion and gay marriage now? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:55, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Socially conservative as in against homosexuality, abortion, the legalization of soft drugs, etc. The thing about the word "ethically" is that ethic comes from ethos, referring to God, so an atheist wouldn't call themselves ethically conservative. --Quarantine Zone (talk) ::::I'm pretty sure théos means god in Greek, not ethos. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:29, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::I agree, TM. 77topaz (talk) 04:07, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::::ethos=habit. I don't agree with the term socially conservative and I'm not going to use it for that reason. What has abortion to do with sociality? In that case, the term itself is heavily biased. It's about your ethics and not about sociality. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:17, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I (as usual :P) agree with Oos. I barely agree with any conservative policies that actually relate to society, like the death penalty, hanging immigrants or whatever it is these rightwingers want to do. Some issues like gay rights overlap between both, I suppose, but even then the reasons for my views are based on ethical conservatism rather than social conservatism. --Semyon 17:20, January 25, 2013 (UTC) Conclusion Again, we are not going to have a coalition. So let's go for the model in which we discuss with all the parties in the First Chamber, but now try to keep all parties active by asking the statements of all the political parties/independents. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:10, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :I agree, I think we should discuss a set up for the ministries, sort out who holds which positions and then inaugurate ourselves. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:48, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::True. When? Wabba The I (talk) 17:15, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::now. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 17:20, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::::Sad no one wanted a coalition government :I Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:48, January 25, 2013 (UTC) Category:Forum Category:Government Last ditch effort - Anyone for a government coalition? Very serious about getting something done this year but only if we have the votes and a direct outline for these goals. Wants: Any active party, big or small hoping to form a coalition (governing or not) large enough to drive some directive in congress. Can range from center-left to center-right, just hoping for some governance. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:57, January 25, 2013 (UTC) *Labour *NPO *CCPL *PNO *CNP *....(anyone?) I like having a Grand Coalition of parties. It includes everyone instead of only some people. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:29, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :The idea is nice, but it didn't work last year. We simply didn't have a coalition, and therefore, several things didn't get done :( --OuWTBsjrief-mich 21:30, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::Well, there wasn't much to enforce after all. This year we should try to motivate the legislature more. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:38, January 25, 2013 (UTC) :::Yeah, but a plan would be a good motivator. If we'd say we have f.e. religious education regulated in march f.e. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 21:42, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::"Grand Coalition" usually means Coalition of the entire house, And may I point out when we have this, this is an actual government with goals and an agreement like User:Crystalbeastdeck09/Coalition Agreement so we can get things done. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:56, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::Heello? Strike while the irons hot guys!!!! Lets get the coalition together already! Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:27, January 25, 2013 (UTC) ::I'm unsure of how a coalition will make more things get done. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:09, January 26, 2013 (UTC) ::Remove NPO and PNO and then everything looks just fine. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 07:54, January 26, 2013 (UTC) ::::Yes, only the tree big parties. Wabba The I (talk) 10:31, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::I don't see why. They hardly have different views and it will only make the coalition weaker. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:38, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::PNO is centrist, controlled by Oos and pro oceana autonomy. NPO is the Labour Oceana affiliate, center-left and controlled by me. I'd rather like to make the coalition "official" with some type of agreement, e' Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:32, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::Should I start creating a page.....Confederate Coalition of Lovia Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:56, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think so, not many people have been active on here and that is why not much pros but I would say "Confederate Coalition of Lovia to be opened!". ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ''' 07:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::: :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:49, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Voting